It was a rough-and-tumble day at the Ninth Circuit for "America's toughest sheriff."

An 11-judge panel on Wednesday grilled the lawyer who represents Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a suit that accuses the sheriff and his cronies of arresting two Phoenix newspaper executives on bogus charges in retaliation for the paper's aggressive coverage of Arpaio.

Many of the judges reviewing the case en banc appeared to back Judge Jay Bybee, who, in a dissent from the three-judge panel's ruling said the action against Arpaio — "a sordid tale of abuse of public office" — should proceed.

[...]

Arpaio's lawyer, Eileen GilBride, argued on Wednesday that the plaintiffs never alleged her client had anything to do with the scope of the special prosecutor's investigation.

But Bybee read to her from a paragraph in the complaint that says the special prosecutor has claimed publicly that Arpaio and his aides "conducted, authorized, approved, and/or directed" the arrests.

At one point, Kozinski offered to loan GilBride his copy of a brief in the case, since she hadn't brought it to court. When she conceded not being aware of something in the brief, Kozinski closed in: Coming to court without the briefs is "poor" form, he said, "but not knowing what's in the briefs is really worse."

An 11-member panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had tough questions today for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's lawyer about why "America's toughest sheriff" should be exempt from a lawsuit claiming he violated New Times' First Amendment rights.

[...]

"I'm a sheriff. I've got guns, I've got deputies, I've got great political power... I'm going to make you really, really sorry if you don't do what I want," said Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, outlining the scenario laid out in the lawsuit -- namely, that Arpaio pressured Thomas and Wilenchik to investigate and arrest Lacey and Larkin. "Why isn't that enough?"

Kozinski also delivered a tongue-lashing to GilBride for her lack of preparation for the hearing, as the lawyer let slip that she had not brought briefs in the case to court with her and was apparently unaware that one of the current issues in the case is whether Arpaio was engaged in a conspiracy against Lacey, Larkin, and New Times.

"Plaintiffs are hiding behind the First Amendment in order to get by knowingly, purposefully violating the law," GilBride said today.

Not all the judges seemed inclined to agree. At one point, Judge Harry Pregerson even suggested that the facts of the case, as alleged in the lawsuit, could merit criminal prosecution.

Asked Pregerson, referring to a Civil War-era federal law against conspiring to violate U.S. citizens' constitutional rights, "Does Section 241 of the Civil Rights Act apply?"

"Indeed, we do have... a conspiracy," said Michael Meehan, lawyer for Lacey, Larkin, and New Times. "The three defendants did act together, and their goal was to violate the First Amendment rights of New Times."

Not looking too good for Shurrif Joe

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/15/justice/a ... ?hpt=hp_t2

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, under the leadership of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, has engaged in systemic discrimination against Latinos with practices that violate federal law and the Constitution, the Justice Department announced Thursday.

A comprehensive investigation found that the practices include "unlawful stops, detentions and arrests of Latinos," according to a Justice Department statement.

It also noted that the sheriff's office has discriminated against "Latino inmates with limited English by punishing them and denying critical services."
It further blames office for allowing "specialized units to engage in unconstitutional practices" and for a lack of oversight and deputy training.

Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez said the office's "systematic disregard for basic constitutional protections has created a wall of distrust between the sheriff's office and large segments of the community." "The problems are deeply rooted in (Maricopa County Sheriff Office) culture, and are compounded by MCSO's penchant for retaliation against individuals who speak out," added Perez.

Many of the judges reviewing the case en banc appeared to back Judge Jay Bybee, who, in a dissent from the three-judge panel's ruling said the action against Arpaio — "a sordid tale of abuse of public office" - should proceed.

If anybody knows about abuse of a public office, it's Bybee.

Feds say Arpaio violated civil rights
By JACQUES BILLEAUD | AP –

PHOENIX (AP) — The federal government issued a scathing report Thursday that outlines how Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office has committed a wide range of civil rights violations against Latinos, including a pattern of racial profiling and discrimination and carrying out heavy-handed immigration patrols based on racially charged citizen complaints.
The report, obtained by The Associated Press ahead of its release, is a result of the U.S. Justice Department's three-year investigation of Arpaio's office amid complaints of racial profiling and a culture of bias at the agency's top level.

The Justice Department's conclusions in the civil probe mark the federal government's harshest rebuke of a national political fixture who has risen to prominence for his immigration crackdowns and became coveted endorsement among candidates in the GOP presidential field.

...

The civil rights report said federal authorities will continue to investigate complaints of deputies using excessive force against Latinos, whether the sheriff's office failed to provide adequately police services in Hispanic communities and a large number of sex-crimes cases that were assigned to the agency but weren't followed up on or investigated at all.

Lawyers, please: I don't understand. Where does a Justice Department "report" fit in the scheme of possible prosecution?

Ryan J. Reilly
December 15, 2011, 2:04 PM 8000 74
Updated: 2:55PM

The Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement just cut off the Maricopa County’s Sheriff’s Office’s access to the Secure Communities program and terminated an agreement which lets them detain individuals in the country illegally after their initial arrest.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a statement that the decision was based on the Justice Department’s findings of discriminatory policing practices by MCSO and Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/dhs_cuts_off_sheriff_joe_arpaios_access_to_ice_programs.php

TPMMuckraker
DHS Cuts Off Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Access To ICE Programs

Okay, so now what? A harsh rebuke? How will that change anything. Sheriff Joe rebuffs hundreds of harsh rebukes before breakfast each morning. Where are the indictments?

If the sheriff's office doesn't turn around its policies and practices, the federal government could pull millions of dollars of federal funding.

The report will require Arpaio to set up effective policies against discrimination, improve training and make other changes that would be monitored for compliance by a judge. Arpaio faces a Jan. 4 deadline for saying whether he wants to work out an agreement. If not, the federal government will sue him and let a judge decide the complaint.

Unfortunately, the taxpayers are probably going to have to pay to defend Sheriff Joe. They would do well to remove him from office before he comes up for trial.

Some of the things that he has done would seem to me to warrant criminal indictments.

from the article:

We're going to fight back. We’re going to show the politics involved,” Arpaio said. “Why are they getting into this at this time, just before the election? I can go on and on about the politics, but you find the timing of all of this very suspicious.”

One thing is certain: Arpaio wouldn’t be stepping down voluntarily.

“Are you serious?” he said when asked if he had any plans to leave office. “No way in a million years. We haven’t done anything wrong. I’ve been sheriff almost 20 years. I’m not going to be driven out of office for following the law.”

“I’m not going to back down because of politics, because the president wants to get the Hispanic vote,” Arpaio said. “It’s never going to happen.”

Yes, the preliminary investigation began in June, 2008. Every time Sheriff Joe or others call the timing suspicious, they should be reminded that it was the DoJ Civil Rights Division of the Bush administration that started the ball rolling. It wasn't Obama or Holder.