Someone suggested that I read further in the ACLU’s opposition to Judge Snows’ recusal in the Melendres case and that was a good suggestion. Attached to that opposition brief is the declaration of Cecillia D. Wang, an attorney for the Plaintiffs. Wang’s declaration was accompanied by 5 exhibits filed under seal. Exhibit B is described as:
Attached hereto as Exhibit B is an email chain with the top-most email dated June 29, 2014, from “David Webb” to 1tick@earthlink.net, Bates-stamped MELC202132.
That email address belongs to Mike Zullo1. David Webb could be the right-wing radio personality by that name who has interviewed Joe Arpaio many times (in this instance Arpaio’s reaction to the film, “The Joe Show”), or perhaps a journalist of the same name who has written about Arpaio. (Update: It turns out that David Webb was a pseudonym for Dennis Montgomery.)
Exhibit D is described:
Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a December 9, 2014 email from “Mike” to detmack@gmail.com, Bates-stamped MELC202048.
“detmack@gmail.com” is someone who once had a washer and dryer for sale in Peoria, Arizona. If I had to guess, I’d say it was Detective Brian Mackiewicz of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.
Exhibit E:
Attached hereto as Exhibit E is an email chain with the top-most email dated April 20, 2015, from Larry Klayman to Michael Zullo, Bates stamped MELC202142-45.
Mike Zullo is a participant in 2, perhaps 3, of the 5 sealed exhibits. I get the impression that Mike Zullo is an operative for Joe Arpaio in more than just the birther investigation. Will we ever know for sure? Perhaps we will. The ACLU filed a brief stating their position that the documents need not be sealed.
Plaintiffs take the position that the foregoing documents should not be sealed under the “compelling reasons” standard set forth in Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Nothing on the face of these documents, or in the record in this litigation, indicates that there are grounds to overcome the strong presumption in favor of public filing of court records. However, because the documents were produced to Plaintiffs on an attorneys’-eyes-only basis, Plaintiffs have lodged the exhibits under seal. Plaintiffs are also filing herewith a redacted copy of the Declaration of Cecillia Wang.
1The email address for Mike Zullo has been published before, so I am not revealing confidential information. For example the great leaker of personal information, Orly Taitz, did it in 2012.
Update: Subsequent to the publication of this article, the Court released the content of the emails, confirming Zullo’s email address.
I can think of no reason to keep them under seal…the defendants claimed it was all “junk” anyway. What’s also interesting is they were still pushing for Montgomery to come up with something against Judge Snow right up until the contempt hearing when this was all revealed in court.
It will be interesting to see how the Defendant’s attorneys address this in the upcoming reply to this brief. About the only valid grounds I can think of is if they claim that it is an “ongoing investigation”. Arpaio and Sheridan both dodged that question when they were on the stand in the April hearings. I think if they admit it is over it would look bad to the Birthers and also expose them to FOIA requests by reporters like Stephen Lemons.
PS, clever title Doc!
Wang did a terrific job on this one. We should give thanks to the ACLU for bringing this case. They are doing a great service for Arizona and America.
How about being such obvious twaddle that they didn’t want it being made public so that they could be roundly laughed at? Would be my best guess. I think Arpaio’s side is desperately scrarmbling to try to find a life boat with no holes in it and failing miserably.
Indeed she has. Wang has effectively boxed the defendants in leaving their only recourse to be to hoist themselves by their own petard. They have no way out of this. And, in their attempts to create an escape hatch they perjured themselves. It definitely appears that Wang is the better chess player. If I were Iafrate I would be looking for a way to get out of this particular client’s way like several other Arpaio attorneys have done.
—
Hear, hear!
In addition to the above, also note that the Plaintiffs’ brief, footnote 2, provides a nice little list of some federal crimes implicated:
“This implicates possible violations of federal criminal laws by MCSO personnel in the course of the MCSO-Montgomery investigation. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(b)-(f) (taking or communication of documents relating to national defense); 798 (disclosure of classified information); 1503 (intimidation of federal court and obstruction of justice); 1509 (obstruction of court orders); 1924 (unauthorized removal of classified information); 2511 (intercepting electronic communications); 2701 (unlawful access to stored communications).”
The other “David Webb” possibility is found in this August 4, 2014 article written by a different David Webb who wrote about Joe Arpaio’s upcoming visit to the Kaufman County Texas Tea Party. This was the event that Arpaio attended and said that he didn’t make a penny on the birth certificate investigation. Arpaio’s statement to the Tea Party was then contradicted by his own statement in the film documentary, The Joe Show.
http://therarereporter.blogspot.com/2014/08/controversial-arizona-sheriff-to-speak.html?m=1
More about Arpaio’s September 20, 2014 meeting with the Kaufman County Tea Party.
http://www.alipac.us/f12/sheriff-joe-arpaio-will-keynote-speaker-kaufman-county-tea-party-fundraiser-311066/
Thousands of dollars is not a penny…
Stephen Lemon’s article about Arpaio and the Kaufman County Tea Party appearance September 20, 2014 (with video links)
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/joe-arpaio-lies-about-raising-cash-off-birther-insanity-as-proven-by-the-joe-show-video-6626881
Mike Zullo is not a member of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office, and if I properly identified David Webb, neither is he. Privilege is lost once a party blabs outside the privileged group.
Any minute now, birthers should be hailing ACLU Attorney Cecillia Wang for her patriotic courage in seeking to unveil, at long last, what could very well be some of Mike Zullo’s universe-shattering evidence. John? Scotte? Svennie?
And they STILL won’t recognized that they’ve been taken for fools. Once the Seattle Operation records are unsealed, Doc will be glad to provide their headline.
Will WND mount a “Where’s The Evidence?” campaign including billboards and airplane banners?
Bob
June 14, 2015
“Will WND mount a “Where’s The Evidence?” campaign including billboards and airplane banners?”
Excellent! Shall we donate to the cause? 😉
That’s an excellent point. We should make the plaintiffs aware of that. They may think Mike Zullo is a real cop or something.
Just FYI, being under seal (which the docs are not at this time) is a wholly different issue than being privileged. IF they were deemed privileged, then Plaintiffs wouldn’t have them. Recall the Casey letter? First it was withheld (on privilege grounds); then it was produced in redacted form (with the privileged parts redacted); then it was produced again in “less redacted” form (with fewer parts deemed privileged.)
The Seattle Operation docs were initially produced “for attorney eyes only” because Judge Snow wanted to give CIA/US Government opportunity to come in and assert any protections appropriate (e.g., classified info, state secrets, etc.)
To clarify: Docs are “under seal” when there has been a protective order entered placing them under seal. There is no protective order relating to the Seattle Docs – as of this time. Therefore, the docs are not “under seal.” As noted above, Snow ordered that the parties not disclose them to give US/CIA time to seek protections. See May 14 Transcript at p 40:
“And so I’m going to order the parties, at least with respect to those documents that are the Montgomery data dump, do not disclose them in any way. I’m not saying you can’t look at them. If you choose to, look at them all you want, but don’t disclose them to anybody else. And that will give the United States another week in which to act if it wishes to do so. I’ve been credibly informed that they’re aware of your letter.”
So – at MOST, the data dump docs are under an order protecting them from disclosure – until the deadline for CIA response passed….
Millions of dollars (for his reelection campaign) is not a penny.
I think that, legally, “getting mountains of campaign donations” is not considered “making a penny” unless there’s a corrupt quid pro quo.
Morally, it’s a different matter. Especially if my prediction that Arpaio won’t campaign for re-election next year turns out to be correct.
Quite. But it really needs a doctored photo of Zullo with his mouth looking rounder, and a whiff of smoke rising from it 😉
Even better would be a cartoon of Arpaio wielding a tiny Zullo like a gun. Perhaps the Republic’s cartoonist will do one if the revelation turns out to be really damning…
wow, publishing email addresses (re). what’s next phone numbers ? real names of your flock ?
the civil liberties union is a joke.
something here has happened here doc.
it seems as if you are more aggressive than usual.
Reality Check: It will be interesting to see how the Defendant’s attorneys address this in the upcoming reply to this brief. About the only valid grounds I can think of is if they claim that it is an “ongoing investigation”.
Oh please! I can see it now, “your honor, we can’t release these documents yet because we’re still investigating you to see if you can find any garbage on you.”
Bet that would go over real well with the appeals court. 😀
LOL, that would go over very well.
My prediction is that Judge Snow will deny the recusal motion after the response from the Defense side on the 22nd and will quickly crank things back up again, Arpaio’s aide will appeal to the Ninth but I think they will also fail there.
Wouldn’t the defense ask for another stay until they have a chance to appeal? They are in the delay, delay, delay some more mode now.
Zullo, as pictured above, now looks like he’s operating under a cloud of suspicion. Is he having second thoughts about his universe shattering adventure? Is he ready to be thrown under the Arpaio court bus? Will he ask for immunity to spill the beans?
They can ask, sure, but they won’t get it. And one doesn’t need to permission to file a writ of mandate in the appellate court.
So the more likely scenario is that the defendants will file a writ in 9th, and also ask the 9th to stay the district court’s proceedings. All of which will be denied.
I doubt that he knows it’s coming.
(Yes, there’s a charming anecdote to go with the picture.)
♫1tick over the Lyme, sweet Jebus, 1tick over the Lyme…♫
1tick,
2ticks,
3ticks, a dollar,
All for Arpaio,
Stand up and holler!
Burma Shave
……crickets……
I verified that Zullo’s email address was “out there” on the Internet before I published it here. Add to that, Zullo is not a private individual, but a public figure and a news maker. It was an essential element of the story, and not a gratuitous outing.
I do have Zullo’s phone number, but I don’t intend to publish it.
A phrase that I had in mind. I wonder if my image is a mixed metaphor.
Is the delay worth the embarrassment of losing and thereby embolden the judge (they might think)?
I love that song.
Arpaio is on Arizona.
One tick two ticks three ticks, a PESO
All for Arpaio stand up an SAY SO
😎
I have to go back to Arpaio’s MO, what has he done previously to successfully escape prosecution? Hope Judge Snow doesn’t have a dog…he might be getting a late-night visit on trumped-up charges.
It’s infectious, innit?
https://youtu.be/t8tdmaEhMHE
Aren’t you too Doc C. and RC. You both have blogs and crow about such things as such and both of have filed public complaints against such individuals related to the CCP.
John,
“Aren’t you too Doc C. and RC. You both have blogs and crow about such things as such and both of have filed public complaints against such individuals related to the CCP.”
Welcome back John. How do you think it’s going for A/Z? What are the next surprises that we should expect? This is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
Congratulations, john! I think you’ve reached a new level of incoherence.
I understand. Along came these men, who said everything you so wanted to hear. Ah, it was all a pack of bald-faced lies, but who cares? You wanted to believe it, and so you put your faith in these people, and called them “Heroes!” and “Patriots!” and “Men of Integrity!'” … all because their bull***t was bull***t that you wanted to believe.
Such pretty lies… so how could they be anything but the truth?
And now your “Heroes!” and “Patriots!” are being publicly and painfully revealed for the low-life, manipulative, lying b**tards that they are…
Just as most of the folks here tried to warn you, so many times.
Do you feel cheated? You sure should.
For what it’s worth, I can sympathize with your disillusionment, to a point. Like all the rest of Joe and Mike’s fan base, you were used. Used like a cheap tramp.
So it’s hard to blame you too much for being a bit incoherent.
Okay, I think I managed to decipher this. And you do have a point (sort of), although I don’t think it’s nearly as big a point as you may think it is.
If I understand correctly, you are objecting that Dr. C published Zullo’s email address. You say that they are public figures as well.
First, Zullo’s email address has been public knowledge for at least 3 years. Orly outed that bit of information in June 2012.
Second, as Dr. C points out, it’s a core part of the story, and the story is newsworthy.
Third, Zullo is certainly a public figure, and in a way that Dr. Conspiracy and Reality Check are not. He doesn’t just have a blog, he’s held press conferences with his BS claims that the President’s birth certificate is a forgery. Not only has he actively sought the limelight under his own name, he claims to officially represent a governmental entity (the MCSO). He is also pretty deeply involved in a very significant court case involving the misdeeds of that governmental entity.
In fact, Zullo and Arpaio have wasted taxpayer dollars on their fund-raising publicity stunt. These are taxpayer dollars involved. The public has a right to know what no good they’ve been up to.
Fourth, no one is revealing Zullo’s email address so that people can harass him personally.
And finally, it’s an email address. I suspect birthers have tried to reveal much more personal and confidential information than that concerning people they regard as “enemies.”
My Mom wanted me to grow up and be Myron Floren.
The one I’d like to see exposed & shamed publicly is the scumbag BSE who posts those vile Sandy hook photos at Gerbil Report.
right, ends justify the means.
i’ve had my cell phone number republished on the internet. i just cause more work, that’s all. are you sure your grievances with zullo aren’t a bit personal ?
then there is redacting. i just don’t see the value in harnessing a communicative element for your own team.
i think something similar happened to the rooster, he didn’t like it. so i’ll ask, what’s the line between public and private ?
don’t you mean persecution jim ? none of it has to do with the bc ?
I don’t understand john, shouldn’t you be HAPPY all the earth shattering information is finally being brought to light? Shouldn’t you be ECSTATIC that A/Z’s investigation is being released in a COURT OF LAW where it can be properly vetted? Isn’t this what you’ve been waiting 6 LONG YEARS for? You finally got A/Z’s evidence before a judge, so why are you upset?
My, someone is bitter!
Aside from the fact that I’m not sure he is capable of shame, he certainly seems to have none otherwise. Maybe his mommy would take away his internet privileges though, and that would be a good start.
As has been pointed out, Zullo’s e-mail address has been public knowledge since 2012. Besides, knowing who was sending and receiving the e-mails is central to the story. An e-mail addressed to 1tick@earthlink.net has little significance unless you know who the recipient is.
If the disclosure of Zullo’s e-mail address by Orly Taitz in 2012 had caused him any problems, he could easily have changed it. I have five e-mail addresses.
Another ad hominem attack by Scott. What a shock!
Will you manage to stagger toward the fainting couch on your own, pumpkin, or will you need to depend upon the kindness of strangers?
The reason scott e and john are so livid, and outraged, is because they were never really interested in “the truth”. Hence their pant-crapping fear over what Zullo “knows” being released. The illusion they keep trying to perpetuate will be shattered if the information is disclosed.
Wow Scotty is whining again big surprise. What’s next? Scotty might actually show up to the debates he chickens out on.
If you call me calling the MCSO to inquire about being named the subject of a criminal investigation by the lead guy of their Clown Case Posse filing a complaint then yes I suppose I did. The Sergent and I both shared a good laugh together about Zullo.
Just learned Donald Trump announced he’s running for President. Perhaps he’ll tag Zullo as his running mate. I think he’s already named Arpaio as his Secretary of Injustice. 🙂
On a more serious note, I regard scott’s and john’s righteous indignation over publishing Zullo’s old email address as disingenuous. Both of them would love to be able to produce and replicate the personal information of any of the contributors to this blog. Fact is, Zullo’s email address was already in the public domain so sharing it here is a bit of an inconsequential afterthought.
Now, to be honest, I would love to expose the personal information of BSE, Falcon and the owner of Birther Report. I would like their employers and their families, along with their parole officers, to know how they spend their time. They need to be held publically accountable for the invidious and salacious stuff they say and do.
naw, i just wanted to be clear once again on rules of engagement.
i do believe there could be a libel suit in all of this, if there is intent to defame.
and is it ethical, that’s all.
one of the most curious affectations of this arena to me, is the difference between people using their own names. you are so correct about public accountability.
Johnny and Scottie,
The significance of the Zullo email address, found in the court records along with the court testimony given by Arpaio suggests that Mr. Zullo is right smack dab in the middle of the Seattle operation apparently to discredit a federal judge. You guys seem to have connections. Who recommended the so called whistle blower, Montgomery, to Mr. Zullo?
and you are ??
and you are ??
i guess we’ll find out.
and you are ??
i guess we’ll find out.
you want specifics ??
No, I think he means prosecution.
Arpaio’s misdeeds and failures are well documented, and they are MANY.
Failing to arrest the rapist of a 13-year-old girl, when the MCSO KNEW who it was. The rapist then went on to rape her again.
How would you like that for YOUR daughter, Scott? Or your niece? Or any of your relatives?
Failing, in fact, to do more than lip service to several HUNDRED sex crime victims, in many cases not even investigating the crimes against them at all.
Falsely arresting and bringing court cases against people for no crime at all… other than that they dared to criticize a man who in fact deserved such criticism.
How would you like to be dragged out of your home in handcuffs, Scott, because of something you said… as an American, whose freedom of speech is guaranteed by our Constitution?
How would you like to have YOUR life ruined by a sheriff’s office bringing a completely unjust lawsuit against you, forcing you to mortgage and maybe lose your home just so you can stay out of jail for the next 10 or 20 years?
How would you like to have YOUR family life, and maybe your career, ruined by that crap?
And this wasn’t a one-time thing. It’s a repeated pattern of behavior, over and over again.
Settling the lawsuits against Arpaio over the past TWENTY TWO YEARS… which have absolutely nothing to do with any bullshit “investigation”… have cost the taxpayers of Maricopa Count around $70 million.
It’s funny how you birther jerks give lip service to our Constitution, and call anyone who disagrees with you a “traitor,” and then when someone massively violates that same Constitution, you declare that person a “hero.”
We’re talking about someone who profiled, detained and harassed people who were 100% legal, simply on the basis of their race. He and his agents didn’t just check people’s immigration status – they actively targeted people on the basis of their race.
How would YOU like to be held by the police simply because you’re white, or English-speaking, Scott?
Then, when they were called on it and ordered by the United States government to stop the harassment, they deliberately ignored the order.
Aside from all of which… Arpaio and his team flat-out lied about their birth certificate “investigation.” That’s been proven beyond any conceivable doubt. It was a fraud. In essence, they ran a con game on the entire damn country.
And yet still you defend this shyster and those who work for him.
You’re despicable, Scott. Try looking yourself in the mirror some time.
Apparently someone who bothered you enough to quote me three times in a row. You’re getting rusty in your trolling scotty.
Ah, my plan is advancing.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2015/03/donald-trump-and-the-perfect-storm/
—-
Actually, the ACLU consists of outstanding attorneys. They pay very little money, but getting a job there is very competitive among attorneys who have graduated at the top of their classes.
They focus on one thing — civil liberties, i.e. people’s rights under the Constitution. I will never understand why some people who are always talking about liberty and the Constitution, or people who identify as libertarian, don’t adore them. Of course, many real liberty-loving people, and real libertarians, genuinely appreciate the ACLU and the important work they do.
The world is much more complicated than an either/or choice between ends and means. In most ethical problems, solutions involve trade-offs. In this case, I would describe the choice as between the public good in understanding what is going on in the Melendres case opposed to a theoretical benefit Mike Zullo might derive from his email address appearing on fewer places on the Internet.
One might question my judgment publishing this photo of Zullo’s residence:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/CCP-Post-Office.jpg
My cynical view is that right-wing ACLU haters believe only in their individual liberty, and not the liberty of others. That is a self-defeating strategy.
Yaa! for Donald Trump. He’s the best because he’s not a politician and not part of the establishment therefore he can act with impudence. All the other candidates are junk including Hillary Clinton…no good.
And usually does.
Online dictionaries are free, you ridiculous child.
Scott E.,, the ACLU is no joke, as people who have faced off against them in court can attest.
Lots of people have a caricature of the ACLU as an organization out to, for instance, expunge religion from American life wherever possible. But I’ll challenge you, Scotty, or anyone else, to come up with as many instances in which the ACLU has gone to court to oppose a particular practice of Chistians, as compared to the number of times the organization has defended the religious freedom of Christians.
It all depends on the situation. The ACLU defends Christians and Christian organizations whose religious freedom they see as scurtailed by government, while also opposing religious observances that are required by government. You may not like where this organization draws its ine, but it does make these distinctions.
For instance, the ACLU has supported the right of a high school valedictorian to have a Bible verse of her choosing printded with her picture in the school yearbook; the right of a second-grader to sing a song of her own choosing, about Jesus, in an after-school event on school 0roperty; to baptize in a public water park; for a street preacher to use the entire sidewalk outside Las Vegas casionos to pass out religious tracts, and so on.
“Alittle learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deeply, or taste not the Perian spring,
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.”
— Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism
I think you meant to say act with impotence.
Not from his ode to Dunning-Kruger?
—
I think you are right that they care about their own liberty, and that of their kin, and that is no strategy when it comes to the Law. As we know, the Law is more than just the particular case at bar–it is largely about the precedence that it sets. So, as precedence, one man’s civil liberties victory is everyone’s civil liberties victory–at least in theory. It’s all one case at a time…. It’s a lot of work, for little money, but the value of the victory is priceless.
As for caring only about one’s own liberty, well, isn’t that pretty much hypocrisy on its face?
—
Well, I guess it’s all about what you’re looking for in a President. Impudence. Gee, John, maybe you have the makings of a new campaign slogan. How about, “Vote for the Donald. He’s Impudent!” Or, how about, “Vote for Trump. All the other candidates are junk, like the findings of Arpaio’s Montgomery Operation.”
That would be a refreshing change of pace from you.
But the reality is that no person or organization has done more to protect your First Amendment rights than the ACLU.
Still, feel free to regale us with your take on the ACLU court victories with which you disagree.
You don’t like freedom of speech? You don’t like freedom of assembly? If so, you probably hate the ACLU.
You can’t defame someone by telling the truth. And you can’t defame someone by expressing an opinion, however severe that opinion might be.
So I am perfectly free to call “Barry Soetoro Esq.” a liar. I am proud to say that I have done it many times.
If Trump is the best you have, prepare yourself for President Clinton.
“He lives in that piece of paper?!”
More bad news for Senor Arpaio.
In 2010, the Department of Justice stated:
“MCSO’s refusal to cooperate with the investigation makes it an extreme outlier and the department is unaware of any other police department or sheriff’s office that has refused to cooperate in the last 30 years.”
Note, Scott (and john), that this was well over a year BEFORE anyone ever raised any question whatsoever of the President’s birth certificate with Arpaio’s office.
Actually, the Phoenix New Times is now estimating that Arpaio’s misdeeds over 22 years have cost the taxpayers a whopping $250 million… conservatively. That’s over $10 million per year, on average, over the past 22 years.
Corruption, disregard of the law, Arpaio is simply a self-promoting thug with a badge.
ROTFLMAO!
oh that has got to go in the file with `marshall law’ and `duel citizenship’ 😀
but going to trump’s `qualifications’, isn’t your president’s supposed lack of political experience one of the bigger gripes (well apart from having an elevated melanin level) that your fellow birfoons have about him being president?
And the revival of the orangutan jokes!
http://www.hecklerspray.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/trump-orangutan.jpg
If anybody’s entitled to a libel suit it’s Doc and Foggy. And, I dare say that the denizens of Birther Report are damn lucky that the President and First Lady are public figures, because the truly awful lies birthers have made up and promoted at that horrible website are clearly and unequivocally the stuff of libel.
As far as the “intent to defame” goes, Mike Zullo manages pretty well to accomplish that all on his own. The man is a pathetic lying weasel, that fortunately history will forget. Hoping people will send him a personal note here: 1tick@earthlink.net to remind him of that.
That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
An idiot like you would cheer for Trump.
Trump is the kind of fella for whom the guillotine was invented.
I doubt “The Donald” would survive a paper cut.
What do you have against pathetic lying weasels, that you would insult them by associating them with a real lowlife like Zullo?
Multiple choice. John really meant:
a) Imperceptibility
b) Improbability
c) imperviousness
d) impunity
e) implacability
f) impossibility
g) implausibility
h) imbecility
When you run out of those, there’s always the flannel moth caterpillar jokes…
http://www.grindtv.com/wildlife/donald-trumps-hair-discovered-crawling-in-amazon/#wzrzuTzOxvusjyEO.97
I doubt Letterman and Stewart are regretting their retirement decision even so.
yet (somehow) a six time democratically elected public servant… who knew ?
As I said before, Scott, you’re despicable.
Unfortunately, there are enough useful idiots out there to bring corrupt demagogues into power, and sometimes to keep them there for long periods of time.
Scott e
“yet (somehow) a six time democratically elected public servant… who knew ?”
He’s a great entertainer with a fantastic marketing machine and he has gullible Birthers and Tea Party fanatics supporting him, not to mention his huge volunteer posse base. He is facing some very tough political times on the horizon.
Most of his constituents didn’t. But that’s changing.
Despite outspending his competition by about 15-to-1 in the last election, Arpaio got less than 51% of the votes. Down from the 80% or more he’d gotten early on.
Now his approval rating is about 35%, and the County has just announced it’s contemplating a tax increase to pay for his sins.
He needs to start working on acquiring a taste for rubber chicken, because that’s where his future lies.
Even that’s too good for him.
80+%… 50%… 35%…
That’s because some people, unlike birthers, actually get smarter over time.
For all the talk you have about chicago corruption isn’t it a little funny that you support someone like Joe who has cost the county over 60mm because of his corruption and abuse of power.
Richard J. Daley, a six-time democratically elected public servant of Chicago
Richard M. Daley, a six-time democratically elected public servant of Chicago.
Yet, somehow you go on about the Chicago machine but insinuate that there is no corruption from Arpaio because he was elected six times.
As the saying goes, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time,but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
Birther = hypocrite.
Any idea they like = “true.”
Any idea they don’t like = “false” or “lie.”
Anyone who promotes a lie that they like = “hero” and “patriot.”
Anyone who defends a truth they don’t like = “liar,” “traitor,” and “hypocrite.”
By their twisted approach, a corrupt, lying, power-abusing, self-aggrandizing politician who wastes hundreds of thousands of dollars on a con man, raises millions based on proven lies, and whose office can’t be bothered to arrest the rapist of a 13-year-old girl = “a patriotic man of integrity who is standing up for America and the truth.”
They are, as I say, despicable people. And as I think someone else has noted, they’re just about completely opposed to true American values. Values of truth, honesty, integrity, standing up for what’s right.
I have learned to despise them.
Pete:
Well said! The hardcore Birthers are truly despicable people.
The cognitive dissonance is again amazing.
Obama, elected twice by the entire country: “usurper”, “voters are dumb”
Arpaio, elected six times by part of an empty state: “the voters have spoken”
*smh*
You forgot “faggot” and “communist”
with all due respect, an empty small insignificant county with 4 million people.
insinuate is the right word, i grew up in chicagoland. illinois politicians have gone to jail. i’ve never heard anyone say “insinuate no corruption”. although it did remind me of the expression, “not even a smidgon of corruption”.
you know i can’t respond to that.
Scott, some points have been made here, but, sadly predictably, you seem to have missed them entirely.
You would honestly do yourself a great huge favor if you were to go look in the mirror, and just slap the stupid off of your face.
you know i won’t be allowed to respond to that.
I think I’m going to try and channel my sentiments into a positive direction.
Scott, why don’t you stop defending evil, and start standing up for what is good?
Why don’t you stop cheering people who lie and exploit and manipulate the public for their own profit?
Why don’t you start standing up for the truth, no matter where the truth leads?
Why don’t you start accepting the truth, instead of fighting any truth you don’t like?
It would certainly be a much better use of your life.
A county with a land mass of 9,224 square miles so yeah pretty empty
NYC has a land mass of 469 square miles with over twice the number of people.
Just as you can never respond when you’ve been made uncomfortable by your own cognitive dissonance. You also can’t answer direct questions either.
no, i mean i can’t speak freely here, like you can. i am not permitted to respond to personal attacks, they won’t get posted. you have the advantage of the mute button here. which actually makes it more interesting.
bangladesh, i don’t know what the average American sheriff has for population as an elected servant.
update: actually now i do… Downtown Phoenix, Arizona, county seat of the fourth most populous county in the United States, Maricopa County, Arizona.
Naah.
Mentioning that you suffer from cognitive dissonance isn’t a personal attack but reality. Time and again you make stupid comments and then change the subject when called on it. No, I think I’ll continue calling out your complete disregard for the truth.
But once again Maricopa is a big open empty space with a spread out population. it doesn’t change the fact that you whine about corruption in Chicago and yet Mr Corruption himself Joe Arpaio is openly supported by you.
Calling him out as a troll is also not a personal attack but reality. If course, he knows he’s a troll as that is his entire reason to be here.
I’m still waiting for you to post your specific criticisms of the ACLU.
well i’m not a psychologist, and i’m certainly no doctor, & i am aware of no medical condition known as cognitive dissonance.
and just how many different counties do those 8 million people and 469 square miles of NYC get you.
so do a better job convincing me about obama’s past.
i’m ok with troll, you know i’ve been called a lot worse.
Balderdash.
And who cares what the population density is in Maricopa County? Completely irrelevant. The point is, you claim to be against corruption, yet wholeheartedly support anyone, no matter how corrupt, if his politics please you.
That’s called being a hypocrite, Scott. It also shows that when you claim to be against corruption, you’re simply lying.
So I noticed Scott didn’t respond to my appeal to humanity.
Not surprising.
Dr. Ken,
The problem is that Scott doesn’t understand the standard so, to him, it looks unfair. To make matters worse, he has no real way of figuring out where the line is so he can’t really get near it without going over it like the non-birthers can. I think he braves the playing field that he sees as unequal so that he can feel superior to us regardless of how much debunking and scorn is heaped upon him.
Just my $0.02.
I said it above, and I will say it again. Scott is trolling. Nothing more, nothing less. He has always been a troll but lately, he is really sloppy in hiding it.
Of course he’s trolling what’s funny is when he pretends he’s not. It’s why he’s always short on specifics and long on absurdity. Come on I still remember the time he called into rc radio and made a comparison of orly to Thomas Edison
It looks like the cloud of suspicion above Korporal Zullo is growing.
Maybe this means the Klown Kommandant is now the one under suspicion. Ain’t life just plain circular???
Notorial Dissent
June 20, 2015
“Maybe this means the Klown Kommandant is now the one under suspicion. Ain’t life just plain circular???”
Yes, when it’s least. expected,
You’re detected,
It’s your lucky day.
Smile,
You’re on court room camera!
those are my quotes, doctor. i try to respond to anything but cheap shots, which i can’t, which is why it seems so scattered to you guys. you are only seeing part of the discussion, not that seeing all of my posts would change either of our positions.
that sheriff, he cares. nice logical jump to “i support/advocate corruption”… who knew ?
Reminder: Monday (tomorrow), we should be seeing Arpaio’s reply brief in support of his recusal motion.
I can imagine the approach as boiling down to something like “no matter what the truth, the public believes that where there’s smoke, there’s fire. To protect the integrity of the courts, the judge must recuse.” I think the fact that this recusal motion comes so late in the process will weigh heavily in the decision.
“Sheriff Joe Arpaio Sending Armed Posse Members To ‘Protect’ Black Churches”
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/06/sheriff-joe-arpaio-sending-armed-posse
Wonder if he’s sending out Commander Zullo on this one?
Here’s another news story on this subject:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2015/06/20/phoenix-civil-rights-leaders-clash-over-arpaio-abrk/29039663/
A quote:
“On Friday, the Maricopa County sheriff announced that at the request of the Rev. Jarrett Maupin, he would post armed posse members at churches with predominantly Black congregations. Maupin said that after the shooting in Charleston, where a gunman killed nine Black churchgoers, he was worried a similar attack could occur in the Valley.
On Saturday, however, several Black church leaders said that Arpaio’s assistance was not wanted and that Maupin did not represent the community.”
Jarrett Maupin has previously played the role of liberal black guy who says what the wingnuts want to hear:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/anti-cop-activist-pastor-trains-maricopa-county-sheriffs-office/
i don’t think joe is the monster you make him out to be. my point with the population is “wow that’s a lot of people”. and there is added responsibility with being a southern border state. i assure U, we don’t have those types of issues in vermont.
& like president, i don’t fully understand why anyone would even want that job. for arpaio, i suppose it was a logical evolution.
So you’re not bothered by intimidation of witnesses, judges and attorneys; racial profiling; false arrests; willfully and intentionally refusing to comply with court orders; $43 million in judgments and settlements paid to compensate families of prisoners who died after being beaten or otherwise abused awhile in Arpaio’s custody; failure to investigate sex crimes; and other violations.
Please feel free to elaborate on your defense of Arpaio’s numerous and repeated violations of the Constitution, the document which you claim to cherish.
That’s something that we are all in agreement.
Yes and we also know you don’t know what words mean either. It shouldn’t be that hard for you to look up or you can just continue to exhibit it here.
It’s not a cheap shot when we ask you questions which you avoid answering. It’s not a cheap shot when we call you out for your hypocrisy. I’ve seen your posts here as well as on political forum. They have the same exact standard of avoid any substantial discussion.
Of course not because you ignore his corruption because you think he’s on your side. Nevermind that he’s cost the county over 60mm in settled lawsuits for his abuse of power. Nevermind that he “investigates” and “charges” his perceived enemies with non-existent crimes they didn’t commit as an intimidation tactic. For a guy who claims to see all the corruption in Chicago you turn a blind eye to Arpaio.
Is that so?
I lived in Tucson (120 miles closer to the Mexican border than Joe’s jurisdiction) for over 30 years.
The ONLY alien I ever met that I KNEW, for a fact, was undocumented, was a Canadian.
Mexico isn’t the only border that America has with foreign countries.
Doesn’t Vermont have one of those border thingies too? It doesn’t sound like Scott is going to be any help at all when the Canadian hordes poised on their southern border come pouring into the US.
I wonder if they’ll be called ‘Ice backs’?
I’m sure Scott will favor a sheriff who cruises hockey games profiling people who have mullets, are polite or say “eh?” as possible ice backs.
Although, on second thought, wearing a mullet is kind of suspicious…
Scott, there’s plenty of evidence of Arpaio’s corruption. I won’t bother going over it with you. It wouldn’t matter if I did anyway, because you would just shut your eyes and ears to it as you always do.
We could start with his PROVEN lies to the nation about having a 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual that “proved” the President’s birth certificate was a fake. That was simply flat-out fraud on the part of Arpaio and/or his Posse.
But there’s plenty more. TONS more. I suggest you start with the Wikipedia article on Mr. Arpaio, and branch out researching from there.
You won’t do it, of course.
Fact: Dozens of allegations by birthers that the President is ineligible, all of which have been shown to be nonsense.
Fact: Birthers have brought hundreds of cases in hundreds of courts, and failed to win a single case.
Fact: Arpaio’s Posse say they have total proof the President’s birth certificate is a fake, but 3 years later, they still won’t tell anyone what it is.
Scott: “Where there’s smoke, there must be fire.”
Fact: Arpaio’s office found guilty of racial profiling, ordered by the feds to change their practices.
Fact: Arpaio admits being guilty of contempt of court.
Fact: Arpaio’s Posse caught red-handed in the act of LYING to the entire nation about their supposed evidence regarding the President’s birth certificate.
Fact: Maricopa County pays out something like $60 million dollars settling legal claims.
Fact: However many TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars they’ve paid out, that’s a HELL of a lot of smoke.
Scott:
(Nothing but the sound of crickets chirping.)
Scott, your hypocrisy is as obvious as the fact that water is wet.
—-
I think you are right. Arpaio really has no other argument. Unfortunately for Arpaio, what “the public” believes about smoke is not part of the proper legal analysis, and his motion is ridiculously untimely.
In addition to Arpaio’s reply, I expect his lawyers will be filing something to argue that the email exhibits should not be made public. That ought to be interesting too.
As a not terribly intellectual exercise I once started a count of the number of individual judges who have been involved in the various Obama and Birfoon related cases.
Including the appeals, re-appeals, en-banc reviews etc, I estimated that in excess of 900 judges at one level or another have looked, smacked forehead, cursed under their breath and kicked every case into touch.
So, in birfoon land that means at least that number have been “gotten to” without a single one exposing Da Ebil Regime and therefore ensuring their safety and place in history……..
And Birfoons wonder why the reality based community calls them nutjobs….
i know, those canadians are always sneaking in, with their hockey gear and molsons.
that’s what i’m trying to tell you, doc has his thumb on the mute button, it’s a one way street. too bad. what was your question ? you guys don’t answer mine.
Thank you for that contribution, bovril.
Another resounding piece of evidence demonstrating the utter nutjobbery of birfoonism.
Anyone home, Scott? Hello?
From the Sharon Rondeau article posted at Birther Report:
“During the second press conference, lead investigator Mike Zullo and Arpaio stated that the standard of probable cause in regard to the forgery of Obama’s long-form birth certificate had been surpassed and that they were aware of the computer which had been used to upload the image to the White House website on April 27, 2011.”
One doesn’t base probable cause on lies. At the July 17, 2012 presser Korporal Zullo presented a 1968 race code chart and said it was from 1961. Yep, real solid probable cause based on the evy-dunce. So what say you, Sharon? You report, we decide?
Every question you’ve asked has been answered you never answer ours. So now why should anyone give you the same courtesy when time and again you prove yourself to be nothing but a troll who avoids direct questions.
Bullcrap, Scott. If you had anything of substance – any substance at all – to say, it would get posted.
Hell, I’ll bet at least 95% of your posts make it through anyway, even though I’ve never seen one yet that contains as much substance as a college symposium taught by Kim Kardashian.
Birthers who actually have something to say (yeah, almost an oxymoron, I know) have been allowed to make their points freely here.
Try saying something of substance sometime.
I deleted a few trollish comments, but nothing with substance, and nothing anyone would consider a response to a challenge.
First, I look to see whether the comment is on the open thread. If not, then I look to see if it is on topic. If it looks like the comment has the sole purpose or eliciting lots of replies, but says nothing (troll), I delete it. I’ve deleted 3 this month (not counting a duplicate). So that’s 3 out of 30.
The defendents’ response to plaintiff’s reponse to their recusal motion reads like it was written by KKKlayman. Very touchy tone, plus the occasional nutjobbish triple emphasis using bold underlined italics.
http://www.thepostemail.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Melendres-06-22-15-MCSO-Response.pdf
They sound desperate. Especially funny are the instances where they claim Arpaio found the Grissom claims “credible” (despite defendants admitting there was no “there” there), or that any allegation made by third parties about the judge should be considered true when evaluating whether they are basis for reasonable assumption of possible bias.
I hope there will be some sanctions for frivolous filings coming these lawyers’ way.
“because undisputed allegations demonstrate that Judge Snow
himself has may have made highly disparaging comments regarding Defendant Arpaio”
“Defendants’ Motion presented uncontroverted statements from credible witnesses that Judge Snow is biased against Defendant Arpaio. Irrespective of the validity of these opinions, the uncontradicted statements squarely make Judge Snow and his wife material witnesses in this action. ”
Now there’s several issues with that:
1. Defendants have already acknowledged in court that the “undisputed allegations” and “uncontroverted statements from credible witnesses” are a heap of crap.
2. The entire argument means that, according to the defendant’s lawyers, any Facebook message by an unknown “witness” can disqualify a judge – precisely what courts do not entertain.
3. Misrepresenting facts that have been stated by the plaintiffs, the court and their own clients (!) – that the allegations are a heap of crap – should be grounds for sanctions, at least in my universe.
So what gives? Are the lawyers playing their Hail Mary, i.e. trying to piss of the judge so much that he says something that would actually warrant recusal? I don’t see any other strategy in this big ball of baloney (which otherwise basically rehashes refuted bogus arguments, like “the judge testified”).
That’s only 90%, so I would’ve lost the bet. I was close, though. 🙂
Re Arpaio’s recusal motion and reply brief: The defendants’ attorneys are utterly convoluting the issue of whether Judge Snow or his wife could be material witnesses. What a snow job, pun intended.
1) How does Mrs. Snow become a material witness in Arpaio’s contempt proceedings? That is, what personal knowledge does she have about Arpaio’s conduct at issue in the contempt hearing? None. Defendants don’t explain in their brief how she could be a witness–they haven’t the nerve.
2) Instead, only Rotunda, in his “expert” affidavit, tells us how she and Judge Snow could become witnesses. He says they will be material witnesses “[a]t Judge Snow’s future disqualification hearing … unless he disqualifies himself.” See his affidavit, paragraph 6.
3) Rotunda then acknowledges (paragraph 7) that, at the “future disqualification hearing,” another Judge would be on the bench–not Snow. Which only begs the question–then what is the problem???
I take Rotunda’s statement as an obnoxious thinly veiled threat that Defendants plan to make Judge Snow and his wife uncomfortable if Judge Snow doesn’t give in now. And Rotunda makes a complete fool of himself when he says Mrs. Snow will be asked: Whether she lied to the Grissoms or whether the Grissoms are the liars. (paragraph 6). Wow, what improper questioning! Maybe they should ask Judge Snow when he stopped beating his wife…
I hope Judge Snow calls their bluff.
If the defense intended to use Rotunda’s reputation to bolster their case, his grandstanding affidavit has thoroughly ruined that plan.
In fact, the whole piece reads more like the typical propaganda filing that is primarily written for a public audience.
But I don’t see the point. Both Arpaio and Sheridan have testified that neither the Grissom nor the Montgomery angle turned up anything on Snow or his wife.
How will they try to spin that either of them is grounds for a reasonable observer to assume bias?
“Bias” could only come from anger about Arpaio following those “leads” at all, but that won’t fly because, as the plaintiffs have already pointed out, it would allow Arpaio to disqualify any judge by “investigating” him in some way.
Again, the cognitive dissonance of babbling about the allegations having to be “considered as true” for the purpose of “impression of bias” after
their clients testified in court that the allegations were baseless is so massive that I can’t see how a lawyer could in good conscience make that argument.
Didn’t one Arpaio lawyer withdraw from the case for ethical reasons? Now we know what kind of crap he refused to file in court.
The Magic M,
“Didn’t one Arpaio lawyer withdraw from the case for ethical reasons? Now we know what kind of crap he refused to file in court.”
As I remember it was Casey & Liddy who bailed.
—-
I agree that the attorneys’ arguments and conduct are baffling. I do note, however, that there is some testimony that defendants themselves concluded that the Grissoms were credible, even though clearly Attorney Casey did not think so. (As you may recall, there is a memo in evidence from Defendants’ former attorney, Casey, advising that the Grissoms’ testimony was fundamentally flawed and Rule 11 prevented him from using it in court).
It irks me that Arpaio’s attorneys contend that Arpaio didn’t raise his concerns about bias and the Grissom investigation years ago “out of an abundance of caution and respect for the Court.” What are they suggesting here? (1) Are they suggesting that Arpaio disagreed with Casey’s adamant assessment that Rule 11 precluded using the Grissom testimony, and only Arpaio’s personal “respect” for the court and cautious inclination stopped him? If so, I see no evidence in the record to support this. (2) Or are they suggesting that complying with Rule 11 means one is exercising an “abundance” of caution and “respect” for the Court? If so, then they are out of line characterizing mere compliance as if it is some optional, virtuous act.
And, yes, Attorney Casey ultimately did resign from the case, based upon non-specified ethical conflicts. Seem to me, where Arpaio is concerned, any number of ethical conflicts could arise. If at some point Arpaio insisted that Casey violate Rule 11, then Casey would have to resign.
To me, a big elephant in the room is the statement of Arpaio’s present attorney, McDonald, to Lemons after the Judge questioned Arpaio about the Grissoms investigation. Plaintiffs raised this statement in their response brief, but Defendants failed to acknowledge/address it in their reply brief. To me, that silence was deafening.
McDonald’s statement to Lemons:
“I’ve heard comment or commentary from so-called lawyer experts, saying, `Gee, the judge should recuse himself.’ That’s ridiculous, of course he shouldn’t! People suggest we should now get rid of Judge Snow. Why? It was an inquiry. It ended there. It was not any kind of a witch hunt. Case closed.”
Funny, maybe Judge Snow can borrow McDonald’s language in his written opinion…